From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: rebasing merges Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:00:09 +0200 Message-ID: <48D8A209.6090708@viscovery.net> References: <20080922155749.c8070681.stephen@exigencecorp.com> <20080922231927.ef18f420.stephen@exigencecorp.com> <48D88813.9060400@viscovery.net> <20080923024653.a3bb8666.stephen@exigencecorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Haberman X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 23 10:01:43 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ki2q2-0004i1-3x for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:01:38 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752916AbYIWIAN (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:00:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752906AbYIWIAN (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:00:13 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso02.liwest.at ([212.33.55.13]:44349 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752848AbYIWIAL (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:00:11 -0400 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1Ki2ob-0003t8-Im; Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:00:10 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.42]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5423CAFCC; Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:00:09 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) In-Reply-To: <20080923024653.a3bb8666.stephen@exigencecorp.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_99=3.5 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Stephen Haberman schrieb: >> This is the expected behavior and not up for debate. > > Cool, thanks for the reply. However, I debate... :-) > >> ---o--o--o--o--o--o <-- origin >> \ >> A'--B' <-- master > > Nice. That makes sense in your scenario. > > Here is mine: I understand your problem very well. pull --rebase does not help your case because it was not designed for your workflow (it was designed to help the one that I sketched). You are probably better served using fetch + rebase -i -p. -- Hannes